continue_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that concurrent execution is rejected; it says nothing about permissions, mutation effects, idempotency, or what happens to the session on success.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no wasted words; the core action is front-loaded and the concurrency constraint follows immediately. It is appropriately sized for a concise tool note.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given two required parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a mutation-like action, the description is insufficient. It should at least explain task_id and expected feedback, even if return values are covered by the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both required parameters. The description mentions 'feedback' and 'same Harness session', which faintly contextualizes the feedback and task identity, but task_id is never explained and no format or sourcing guidance is given.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('review feedback') and scopes it to the 'same Harness session', which distinguishes it from submit_task. It is clear enough for an agent to identify the action, though it could more explicitly say it continues an existing task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'same Harness session' implies usage after a task already exists, and 'Rejects concurrent execution' gives one operational constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over submit_task or other siblings, leaving alternatives unaddressed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.